MSU 2 Deep Talent Level vs Ole Miss 2 Deep talent level

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Out of Bounds

That was taken out of context. I referenced according to the recruiting rankings. If you've listened to the show more than that 1 segment, then you would know I've given Mullen credit as an outstanding talent evaluator & developer of talent. However, looking at modern day recruiting rankings (post 2000 or 2002).....only elite recruiters have won the national championship. Oregon is a semi-elite recruiter and played for the national championship twice. You have to recruit in the top-20....annually to have a shot to win it all (at a minimum). What Mullen & MSU accomplished last yr (ranked #1) was an anomaly and remarkable. Out of Bounds has acknowledged & discussed that dozens of times.
Out of Bounds podcast: http://*******/1JHXEOj
Out of Bounds Radio App w podcast: http://*******/1l69XZN

---

Well, this post has sparked my interest (I guess it's nearly football season again). According to the recruiting rankings, MSU should be a 6-6 team every year. And yes, our #1 ranking was an anomaly last year..... one that I'll never forget. But according to recruiting rankings / numbers, Oregon is an anomaly every year. They average between an 85 and a 89 every year when it comes to numbers. Yes, they have their elites like De'Anthony Thomas but they also had a 3* (86 points) quarterback who won the heisman.

OM has been recruiting like a team with 14 national titles in their pocket. They are being slated as having one of the best defenses for 2015. But MSU is being slammed as having a young, inexperienced defense that's going to give up a lot of points. And honestly, we may give up a ton of points. But I don't think an OM team that gave up and got hammered by Arkansas 30 - 0 is a top 15 defense. I also don't believe a team that can't run the ball will be a top 15 team. OM's leading rusher didn't even rush for 600 yards. MSU nearly had 2 players rush for over 1,000 yards.

What I'm saying is, talent projections don't always produce success. If that was the case, Georgia would win the East every year. Talent, sportsmanship, comradery, and confidence produce success. After talking to several coaches, including Tusk's dark lord, I've determined that the greatest success on the field is produced by the men who put on the pads. It's not a number or star, it's their will to beat the guy in front of them. Do you think the numbers predicted a 3*, third string qb to win the national championship?

And you may have to recruit in the top-20 to win it all, but you don't have to recruit in the top-20 to be relevant. MSU may not win it all this year, but they're going to give a lot of teams hell.

What I took from this is we get solid return on our inve$tment. **** kinda

http://img.pandawhale.com/134857-wat...spoon-3GqO.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

We drug him out!!!!

I can respect this, & I apologize for not listening to the entire show.

I do think it's incredibly logical to say that the teams with the best players should/will win the national championship, but I think a "non-elite recruiter" with an "A" QB is going to win one soon. With the amount of money that is now in college football. schools like MSU, Ole Miss, Baylor, TCU, Oregon, Arizona, etc... are now able to hold onto their coaching staffs for extended periods of time, where as in the past those staffs would be purged by "elite recruiters" when they had a run a poor seasons. This allows 2nd tier recruiters to build programs & recruit to systems like never before. Along with this, football is becoming more of a thinking mans game, & the quality of high school football being played in rural areas has elevated, & all this leads to there being more parity across the sport. Simply, the talent levels of the players that play in the game (the top 50 or so players) is closer than it's ever been between the "elite recruiters" & top 30 recruiters.

Lastly, with my post, I was just pointing out that, regardless of what the recruiting rankings say, MSU & Ole Miss are running out virtually the same talent level on Saturdays.

---

I agree with several points you made and we've discussed that for years. However, over the last 15 yrs, elite recruiters have won it all. Has the Southeast exploded with "B" players? Absolutely. Has the spread (or leveraging space) leveled the playing field? Hell yes. Is the QB position the great equalizer? Yes. Do programs like MSU, TCU, Mich St & S. Carolina have a better shot today to compete and win big games? Yes. Does a program (any program) need to consistently recruit in the top-20 b/c the margin for error is so thin on Saturdays? Yes. Has cable $$ and strong strength & dev programs had an impact? Yes. But bottom line, a program needs talent first & foremost.....the development piec is a critical component & Mullen & Co. have done an amazing job. Enjoying the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Out of Bounds

I agree with several points you made and we've discussed that for years. However, over the last 15 yrs, elite recruiters have won it all. Has the Southeast exploded with "B" players? Absolutely. Has the spread (or leveraging space) leveled the playing field? Hell yes. Is the QB position the great equalizer? Yes. Do programs like MSU, TCU, Mich St & S. Carolina have a better shot today to compete and win big games? Yes. Does a program (any program) need to consistently recruit in the top-20 b/c the margin for error is so thin on Saturdays? Yes. Has cable $$ and strong strength & dev programs had an impact? Yes. But bottom line, a program needs talent first & foremost.....the development piec is a critical component & Mullen & Co. have done an amazing job. Enjoying the debate.

---

To that point, I still think it's only a matter of time. IMO if you are capable of winning 10 regular season games in a P5 conference, you're only a few breaks away from a natty. Also, as far as spread/space offenses leveling the playing field for non-elite recruiting schools, we are still very much working with a small sample size of 10 years or so at most. First time I can remember those offenses elevating programs into the natty discussion was 2007 when Oregon was in line to play for a title until Dennis Dixon blew out his knee against Arizona and then West Virginia was in line to play for the natty until they choked against a bad Pitt team. Now obviously those are examples of non-elite teams coming up short, but the point is to illustrate that we are talking a very recent development in the landscape of CFB here, and there's been plenty of elite recruiting schools to come up short/choke/have injuries derail a natty run too. And Oregon was an all-time ridiculous faux tackle run/balancing act away from going to OT against auburn, so it's hard for me to believe the difference in Oregon being capable of winning a natty and not is the inch between dyer's knee and the fiesta bowl turf.

Also, it's pretty hard to say how programs like Florida, f$u, Miami, etc. were recruiting on a yearly basis prior to their breakthroughs because those happened in a pre-recruiting ranking world. I'm sure they were doing fine being in Florida, but would they have been top 10 classes every year? Or were they finding diamonds in the rough and polishing them? All 3 of those programs were somewhere between irrelevant and mediocre prior to the late 70s/early 80s.

I tried to listen to more than one segment, but seems like I picked the wrong day. Nothing but rebel dribble this morning and repeats from the Tom L interview on swag kelly. One thing I did learn is that MGK has ADD and will be on amphetamines this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgs

To that point, I still think it's only a matter of time. IMO if you are capable of winning 10 regular season games in a P5 conference, you're only a few breaks away from a natty. Also, as far as spread/space offenses leveling the playing field for non-elite recruiting schools, we are still very much working with a small sample size of 10 years or so at most. First time I can remember those offenses elevating programs into the natty discussion was 2007 when Oregon was in line to play for a title until Dennis Dixon blew out his knee against Arizona and then West Virginia was in line to play for the natty until they choked against a bad Pitt team. Now obviously those are examples of non-elite teams coming up short, but the point is to illustrate that we are talking a very recent development in the landscape of CFB here, and there's been plenty of elite recruiting schools to come up short/choke/have injuries derail a natty run too. And Oregon was an all-time ridiculous faux tackle run/balancing act away from going to OT against auburn, so it's hard for me to believe the difference in Oregon being capable of winning a natty and not is the inch between dyer's knee and the fiesta bowl turf.

Also, it's pretty hard to say how programs like Florida, f$u, Miami, etc. were recruiting on a yearly basis prior to their breakthroughs because those happened in a pre-recruiting ranking world. I'm sure they were doing fine being in Florida, but would they have been top 10 classes every year? Or were they finding diamonds in the rough and polishing them? All 3 of those programs were somewhere between irrelevant and mediocre prior to the late 70s/early 80s.

---

Agree, I don't think the sample size is near large enough to make definitive statements about where you have to recruit to win the NC. It' only a matter of time IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Out of Bounds

I agree with several points you made and we've discussed that for years. However, over the last 15 yrs, elite recruiters have won it all. Has the Southeast exploded with "B" players? Absolutely. Has the spread (or leveraging space) leveled the playing field? Hell yes. Is the QB position the great equalizer? Yes. Do programs like MSU, TCU, Mich St & S. Carolina have a better shot today to compete and win big games? Yes. Does a program (any program) need to consistently recruit in the top-20 b/c the margin for error is so thin on Saturdays? Yes. Has cable $$ and strong strength & dev programs had an impact? Yes. But bottom line, a program needs talent first & foremost.....the development piec is a critical component & Mullen & Co. have done an amazing job. Enjoying the debate.

---

You're still missing the point, Bo! YOU are claiming we aren't recruiting consistently in the top 15-20 based ON A RECRUITING RANKING. Meanwhile, our list of players getting drafted says we ARE recruiting that high. Quit letting a number, generated by a bunch of keyboard heroes that watch a guy's highlight film or get their info from Yancy Porter, tell you how well we recruit! Until you quit basing "elite" recruiters on a number on a website, you'll never stop being wrong about this.

Paul Johnson's "ranking" has been 20+ points lower than Mullen' s yet he spanked Mullen, and was a close loss to FSU from being in the playoffs. I bet he would also tell you you're crazy if you think "43rd ranked class on 247" is accurate...it's not even close. You can't base a team's success on a number that is partially based on how many traditional powers offered a kid. That doesn't define "elite" recruiters, and only leaves you with a chicken vs egg debate on how good a player truly is.

Quit basing your "facts" on fictitious rankings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CadaverDawg

You're still missing the point, Bo! YOU are claiming we aren't recruiting consistently in the top 15-20 based ON A RECRUITING RANKING. Meanwhile, our list of players getting drafted says we ARE recruiting that high. Quit letting a number, generated by a bunch of keyboard heroes that watch a guy's highlight film or get their info from Yancy Porter, tell you how well we recruit! Until you quit basing "elite" recruiters on a number on a website, you'll never stop being wrong about this.

Paul Johnson's "ranking" has been 20+ points lower than Mullen' s yet he spanked Mullen, and was a close loss to FSU from being in the playoffs. I bet he would also tell you you're crazy if you think "43rd ranked class on 247" is accurate...it's not even close. You can't base a team's success on a number that is partially based on how many traditional powers offered a kid. That doesn't define "elite" recruiters, and only leaves you with a chicken vs egg debate on how good a player truly is.

Quit basing your "facts" on fictitious rankings.

---

Those subjective recruiting rankings have been accurate over the years as far as predicting the national champions. So in that regard, Bo is stating a fact. Arguing for MSU's case is putting the burden of proof on you, not Bo. His position is sound.

Seems to me 2 different points are being argued. The guys on the board are arguing relevance & being a good team year in & year out doesn't have to be tied in to a yearly top 20 recruiting class. Bo is saying to win a National Championship you do have to recruit at an elite level. Both sides are right. We've proven that we can win consistently without yearly Top 20 classes. So has Ga Tech, TCU, South Carolina, etc. By contrast none of those teams have a won a title yet & until they do Bo & everyone who look at recruiting rankings as a barometer to success will be able to say yea you guys were good but you haven't won anything yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5 Star

Those subjective recruiting rankings have been accurate over the years as far as predicting the national champions. So in that regard, Bo is stating a fact. Arguing for MSU's case is putting the burden of proof on you, not Bo. His position is sound.

---

only because the top tier talent is so easy to rate- and the blue bloods draw the top guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ifyouonlyknew

Seems to me 2 different points are being argued. The guys on the board are arguing relevance & being a good team year in & year out doesn't have to be tied in to a yearly top 20 recruiting class. Bo is saying to win a National Championship you do have to recruit at an elite level. Both sides are right. We've proven that we can win consistently without yearly Top 20 classes. So has Ga Tech, TCU, South Carolina, etc. By contrast none of those teams have a won a title yet & until they do Bo & everyone who look at recruiting rankings as a barometer to success will be able to say yea you guys were good but you haven't won anything yet.

---

This

10 win seasons in today's college football by a P5 team means you are talented- that's the bottom line. It doesn't matter wtf your recruiting rankings have been.

If you only judge a program by winning a NC- then what- 124 teams are failures every year? The teams IYOK mentioned have been winning at a top 15 level without being in the top 20 in recruiting rankings. That's a fact

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ifyouonlyknew

Seems to me 2 different points are being argued. The guys on the board are arguing relevance & being a good team year in & year out doesn't have to be tied in to a yearly top 20 recruiting class. Bo is saying to win a National Championship you do have to recruit at an elite level. Both sides are right. We've proven that we can win consistently without yearly Top 20 classes. So has Ga Tech, TCU, South Carolina, etc. By contrast none of those teams have a won a title yet & until they do Bo & everyone who look at recruiting rankings as a barometer to success will be able to say yea you guys were good but you haven't won anything yet.

---

And what I'm saying is the sample size is far too small and the development of the spread/space offenses among P5 level competition far too recent to draw any conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgs

And what I'm saying is the sample size is far too small and the development of the spread/space offenses among P5 level competition far too recent to draw any conclusion.

---

What do you consider the sample size? Recruiting sites have been around for 10-15yrs. The spread is just the newest wave just like the run & shoot. The facts have been proven up to this point that the teams who get elite talent win National Championships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ifyouonlyknew

What do you consider the sample size? Recruiting sites have been around for 10-15yrs. The spread is just the newest wave just like the run & shoot. The facts have been proven up to this point that the teams who get elite talent win National Championships.

---

The current spread ideas are far more effective than the run & shoot. And there are various forms of it. It's not a one size fits all label.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgs

The current spread ideas are far more effective than the run & shoot. And there are various forms of it. It's not a one size fits all label.

---

What is your sample size?

I think another part of this debate is this:

Is Ole Miss closer to winning a National Title than MSU because they recruit at a "semi-elite level" or are we both in similar spots because the talent we put on the field on Saturdays is basically the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

I think another part of this debate is this:

Is Ole Miss closer to winning a National Title than MSU because they recruit at a "semi-elite level" or are we both in similar spots because the talent we put on the field on Saturdays is basically the same?

---

I think we're in similar spots. Also all of their upper end players are leaving after this year so if they don't contend for a title this year how big of a step back do they take next year without the super elite talent on the roster anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5 Star

Those subjective recruiting rankings have been accurate over the years as far as predicting the national champions. So in that regard, Bo is stating a fact. Arguing for MSU's case is putting the burden of proof on you, not Bo. His position is sound.

---

You're missing my point too. It's a chicken vs egg argument. If Saban is drooling over a guy because he fits a need, that kid will get 5 stars or 4 minimum...that doesn't mean he's any better than one of our 3 stars after a redshirt year...so has anybody ever thought that it's a combination of players, development, AND coaching that wins Titles?

When was the last time Georgia won a Title despite top 5-10 classes every year? Yall are drawing way too many conclusions off of that number on 247, when the truth is, Bama, LSU, USC, etc, could have signed our EXACT classes the last 3 years, and they would have all been Top 10 classes because THEY signed them and therefore the kids "must be good".

So is Bama, Auburn, etc truly signing that much better classes than us? Or are their classes that "good" because they're Bama's class? I'm not saying they aren't getting more "ready made" talent on the front in...but talent is talent, and after 2 years in our system, we have several players better than or equal to Bama's on the field. And we've reached a point where all of our guys are getting those years of development before having to contribute....so we are fielding a team that is very comparable talent-wise with the big boys. They just may not have been as fine tuned when they signed.

So by the time our guys take the field, they're comparable to what Bama has on the field...so what does that initial ranking have to do with their chances of winning it all versus ours? Not a damn thing. But what does have an impact, is COACHING and continued development throughout their careers, and that is what National Champions have. See Bama, TCU, Oregon, etc. It's also the reason LSU is trending down...because talent is there, but coaching is not.

For people to make a blanket statement about a recruiting number equalling success, is garbage. You'll see a perfect example up North this year. That team is talented enough to compete for a Title, but Bc Freeze hasn't developed a QB in 4 years, they won't sniff one.

Just my opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CadaverDawg

You're missing my point too. It's a chicken vs egg argument. If Saban is drooling over a guy because he fits a need, that kid will get 5 stars or 4 minimum...that doesn't mean he's any better than one of our 3 stars after a redshirt year...so has anybody ever thought that it's a combination of players, development, AND coaching that wins Titles?

When was the last time Georgia won a Title despite top 5-10 classes every year? Yall are drawing way too many conclusions off of that number on 247, when the truth is, Bama, LSU, USC, etc, could have signed our EXACT classes the last 3 years, and they would have all been Top 10 classes because THEY signed them and therefore the kids "must be good".

So is Bama, Auburn, etc truly signing that much better classes than us? Or are their classes that "good" because they're Bama's class? I'm not saying they aren't getting more "ready made" talent on the front in...but talent is talent, and after 2 years in our system, we have several players better than or equal to Bama's on the field. And we've reached a point where all of our guys are getting those years of development before having to contribute....so we are fielding a team that is very comparable talent-wise with the big boys. They just may not have been as fine tuned when they signed.

So by the time our guys take the field, they're comparable to what Bama has on the field...so what does that initial ranking have to do with their chances of winning it all versus ours? Not a damn thing. But what does have an impact, is COACHING and continued development throughout their careers, and that is what National Champions have. See Bama, TCU, Oregon, etc. It's also the reason LSU is trending down...because talent is there, but coaching is not.

For people to make a blanket statement about a recruiting number equalling success, is garbage. You'll see a perfect example up North this year. That team is talented enough to compete for a Title, but Bc Freeze hasn't developed a QB in 4 years, they won't sniff one.

Just my opinion

---

No, I get your point. I just disagree.

As far as your question about whether Bama and Auburn classes are better than ours, the answer is yes. Over the long term, their classes have been better, that's why they beat us more often than not. And yes, coaching plays a big part, Bobby Petrino will attest to that, he elevates talent more than any other. But the facts are, you aren't winning a title (according to history) without elite recruiting (however you measure it - and the sites are as good as any source at this point, especially the 247 composite). I understand there are variations here and there, but over the long haul the ratings have gotten it right.

I'm looking long-term, big picture, and going by the rules not the exceptions.